OU COMMITTEE POSTPONES DECISION ON POT PENALTIES

An Ohio University committee that had been poised to recommend stricter
penalties for possession of marijuana decided last week to delay the
recommendation, in order to collect more input from students and other
interested parties.

"We decided that it really is important to hear from everybody, and so
we're going to wait," OU Director of Judiciaries Judy Piercy said Sunday
morning. She serves on the university's Review and Standards Committee.

She said the committee will meet Jan. 7 and at that time discuss how to
collect more input from interested parties before making a recommendation
to the OU Board of Trustees.

One of those parties will be Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, a group
that has mounted a recent lobbying effort against the marijuana penalty
proposal.

Abby Bair, vice president of the group, said Sunday that SSDP has been
invited to attend the Jan. 7 meeting. About the university committee's
decision to delay its recommendation, Bair said, "I think it's awesome. It
was nice that the committee recognized the opposition to their amendment
process... and that they're listening to us."

Under the proposed amendment, possession of small amounts of marijuana
(under 100 grams) would become a Class A offense in the Student Code of
Conduct. That would expose student violators to a maximum penalty of
expulsion, though lesser penalties also would be possible. Currently,
possession of marijuana under the bulk amounts is a Class B offense, with a
maximum penalty of disciplinary probation. Students on probation can be
suspended from school up to a year if they have any further violations.

The proposal to toughen the marijuana penalty is just one part of a general
updating of the university's disciplinary rules. The committee's decision
to delay a decision affects the overall update of the rules, and not just
the marijuana proposal, Piercy said Sunday.

In an interview last week, Piercy countered the notion that the Review and
Standards Committee has tried to sneak through controversial proposals. She
noted that the committee has been working on the changes for nearly two
years, and that students on the committee, including Student Senate
officials, were supposed to go back to their constituencies to report on
the various proposals.

In the interview, which occurred before the committee was scheduled to meet
on Thursday afternoon, Piercy said the committee feels that student input
is important, and if it meant delaying a decision on the recommendation,
the committee would probably do so. If approved, the recommendation for
updating campus disciplinary rules will go to the OU Board of Trustees for
final approval.

Leaders of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, including Bair, met with OU
Vice President for Student Affairs Richard Carpinelli, chair of the Review
and Standards Committee, on Friday afternoon to discuss their concerns
about the proposed marijuana penalty change. At that time, Bair said,
Carpinelli informed them about the delayed recommendation and the meeting
in January.

At that meeting, Bair said, the SSDP intends to explain its opposition to
the marijuana rule changes, inform the committee about other campus groups
that also oppose the proposed changes, and lobby to get a voting seat on
the Review and Standards Committee.

Earlier on Friday, Bair confirmed that SSDP members also are concerned
about a committee proposal to enact tougher penalties for possession of
drug paraphernalia, including "clean" marijuana pipes sold in local stores.
She also complained that the Review and Standards Committee had made no
"affirmative effort" to alert students to the proposed disciplinary rule
changes.

In addition to its efforts in opposition to the pot penalty proposal, Bair
said SSDP intends to lobby the university to update its drug education
materials, which in some instances she said are unrealistic and exaggerated.

In general, SSDP and other student groups maintain that possible expulsion
for simple possession of marijuana is too harsh a penalty. They note that
possession of small amounts of marijuana currently warrants only a small
fine in the state of Ohio, and that it doesn't make sense to level a much
harsher penalty in the campus setting.

In a meeting Nov. 7, SSDP and other student groups decried the proposal.
During the meeting, Luke Ellwood, who formerly served on the Review and
Standards Committee, declared, "If the board really wants to pursue its
goal of education, why is it necessary to have the option to separate a
student from OU for a first-time offense?"

The groups decided to pursue a number of strategies, including a
petition-signing campaign, formation of a coalition of student groups to
battle the disciplinary proposals, staging public protests, and flooding
local media with letters to the editor. SSDP leaders plan to submit their
petition to the Review and Standards Committee at the Jan. 7 meeting. The
petition currently has 500 signatures, Bair said.

She acknowledged the necessity to convince the university that a broad
coalition of student groups oppose the marijuana proposals, and not just a
single group. SSDP plans to continue lobbying other campus groups to join
their effort.

University officials have cited an increase in marijuana referrals in
recent years as part of their justification for making the penalties more
severe.

In an interview in October, Review and Standards Committee chair Carpinelli
stated, "Students recognize that drugs and possession are serious
transgressions against the university, and it is my sense that most
students would expect harsh rules for this issue."

He added that the change "will certainly give us the ability to articulate
expecations and how serious we view drug issues. We regard the matter as
very serious."